Meade to change model names per lawsuit settlement

[George]

Meade has agreed (http://www.rcopticalsystems.com/downloads/FinalPressRelease.pdf) to change their model designations to more appropriately reflect their design.

The agreement ensures that Meade Instruments Corporation will:
a) not place any new magazine advertising which states that the LX200R, the RCX400 or any catadioptric or refractor telescope is a "Ritchey-Chrétien"; b) ensure that none of their advertising states that the LX200R, the RCX400 or any catadioptric or refractor telescope is a "Ritchey-Chrétien"; c) remove the "R" from the model number of the LX200R and the "RC" from the model number of the RCX400, and shall not thereafter use "RC", separately or in combination with other letters such as "ARC," ...

[Dave Mitsky]

It's about time. How unfortunate it was that Meade decided to go that route in the first place.

Dave Mitsky

[Siguy]

I think that the whole thing is ridiculous. After all, Meade never called them Ritchey-Chretien, just "Advanced Ritchey-Chretien", which they advertise as a less expensive alternative to "true" Ritchey-Chretien that works almost as well. The Advanced RC system was designed by Meade, and as long as they don't directly claim it as being something else, and it has some similar features, they have every right to say that it is an advancement on a well known design. Anyone who is going to buy a high quality telescope like theirs will know to do a bit of research first, and if they really want a true Ritchey-Chetien, then they know to look elsewhere. Even if they don't know what they are looking for, they might see a really expensive telescope that has lots of nice features and is of high quality, they don't care about the technical stuff. As long as it is a good product (Meade has some brilliant engineers who certainly know what they're doing. I certainly respect the company. Even though I have only been using telescopes for less than a year, I think that their products are extremely high quality with every attention put into detail.), it doesn't matter what it's called. The Advanced RC is just a name that is solely for advertising since "Advanced Ritchey Chretien" sounds flashier than "Advanced Coma-Correcting Modified Schmidt Cassegrain" or whatever.

http://www.meade.com/rcx400/index.html
http://www.meade.com/lx200r/index.html

[Kaptain K]

Siguy,

I must disagree! Calling it an "Advanced Ritchey-Chretien" strongly implies better than, not "works almost as well"!

[Siguy]

Not necessarily. Some would see it as an advancement on the RC design, it has some features that traditional RCs don't have.

Your argument vaguely reminds me of a commen argument against evolution, that evolution cannot possibly be true as we are much smaller than dinosaurs.

[hhEb09'1]

Not necessarily. Some would see it as an advancement on the RC design, it has some features that traditional RCs don't have. Isn't that what Kaptain K said?

Dunno

[Kaptain K]

Not necessarily. Some would see it as an advancement on the RC design, it has some features that traditional RCs don't have.
Yeah, like serious spherochromatism!?! :lol: Doesn't sound like an "advanced feature" to me!

Your argument vaguely reminds me of a commen argument against evolution, that evolution cannot possibly be true as we are much smaller than dinosaurs.
Surely you can find a better straw man than that!

[George]

Here (http://www.star-instruments.com/images/MeadeRCX.pdf) is a reasonably short description (pdf) of some of the real differences. There is a reason they went to the trouble to fight, as well as, a reason they one.

It doesn't mean, of course, that the Meade advancements are not without merit. They are an advancement in performance over the SCT. They are just not equal, nor an advancement to, the RC.

[Hornblower]

While I am not sure whether or not this controversy warranted a lawsuit, I am 100% with the plaintiffs on the optical merits of their case.

The Meade scope is an advance over the standard Schmidt-Cass, meaning it is modified to correct coma. This is an analogy to modifying the classical all-mirror Cassegrain to the RC design, correcting coma while retaining complete freedom from chromatic aberration. Since the Meade design still has the residual chromatic aberration, which gets worse as you go into ultraviolet or infrared work, I have to agree with the plaintiffs that it should not be called something like "advanced RC". It is an aplanatic Schmidt-Cass, nothing more and nothing less. It is an excellent scope for what it was designed for, but still a bit short of an RC in supercritical work in which the chromatic aberration might be a problem.

[Kaptain K]

They wouldn't have been sued if they had been honest and called it a "Retarded Ritchey-Chretien". But, then again, that probably wouldn't have sold as well! :lol:

[RickJ]

Not necessarily. Some would see it as an advancement on the RC design, it has some features that traditional RCs don't have.


Yeah, like a corrector plate that fogs over and adds an optical element that reduces light transmission and adds a bit of a color problem though that is minor and hard to see.

Besides it is really a rather old design. Bob Cox, of the old Gleanings for ATM's gave a talk I attended in Kansas City in which he discussed improved SCT designs. This was one he discussed. He never once mention that RC term talking about it. Yes it was an advanced design OF THE SCT not RC scope however.

Oh yes, I own a so called R model and would never consider it a RC scope. I've used both and there's little comparison. It is still much closer to a classical SCT than RC. I got it because the RC design was beyond my budget -- way beyond it. For astrophoto work it is a very noticeable improvement or advance over the SCT design but certainly not for the RC design. Visually I would go with the standard SCT due to the larger secondary in the R and RCX versions.

As to improvements, Vixon has out an even better solution for astrophotographers, the VC200L but it is only in the 8" size. Cox also talked about that design or something very similar at that talk. So it isn't new either. No corrector as it puts the correcting lenses in the baffle tubes where they can correct fully for color as well as give a flat field with tight stars corner to corner over a large field of view. This solves the dew problem as well. Maybe they should call it an even more advanced RC. They take the high road however. Something Meade should have done. Though I'm not sure their new name ACF for Advanced Coma Free is true either. The corners of my R model still show some coma in my STL-11000. See my uncropped posts in the astrophoto forum. My typical seeing hides it much of the time but if I had a location with better seeing it would be rather noticeable. Also the field is curved, not flat. A problem for RC as well that they don't mention in the PDF file which I found interesting. As that takes lenses to fully correct in the RC. In my 14 LX200 R (now) ACF I do have to focus a small bit soft in the center in order that the corners not be too far out of focus. Corners out of focus just makes the residual coma that much more noticeable. I had to do the same with the 12" RC I once used with 35mm film so I'd call this issue a toss up.

I know several folks who would have bought one if originally advertised as they now must. This was a scope designed for the knowledgeable amateur. They were turned off by the RC reference. Meade shot themselves in the foot with this error. Another mistake was making the RCX version only as a complete scope. Many who would have considered it already owned mounts superior to the one on the RCX so wouldn't buy it. That cost them sales as well.

Rick

[geonuc]

While I am not sure whether or not this controversy warranted a lawsuit, I am 100% with the plaintiffs on the optical merits of their case.
How else might they have prevailed upon Meade? Lawsuits are the proper means for settling disputes such as this.

[Dave Mitsky]

Here (http://www.star-instruments.com/images/MeadeRCX.pdf) is a reasonably short description (pdf) of some of the real differences. There is a reason they went to the trouble to fight, as well as, a reason they one.

It doesn't mean, of course, that the Meade advancements are not without merit. They are an advancement in performance over the SCT. They are just not equal, nor an advancement to, the RC.

I agree completely with the exception of the use of the word one for won. ;)

The Meade design is in no way a R-C Cassegrain, advanced or otherwise. It is, in fact, an aplanatic Schmidt-Cassegrain and does, in fact, offer some performance advantages over the traditional SCT design.

Dave Mitsky

[tdvance]

is there really anybody out there confused enough to think the Meade RC telescopes are anything more than what they actually are? I would have thought you'd have to prove customers think they are getting a very expensive scope at a deep discount to make the case against Meade. The ads I'd seen were pretty clear that the design is inspired by Ritchey-Chretien but is much cheaper.

[NGCHunter]

is there really anybody out there confused enough to think the Meade RC telescopes are anything more than what they actually are? I would have thought you'd have to prove customers think they are getting a very expensive scope at a deep discount to make the case against Meade. The ads I'd seen were pretty clear that the design is inspired by Ritchey-Chretien but is much cheaper.

I agree, to me it always seemed that the "advancement" was in how cheaply it could be manufactured, not in performance. It seems like this would be akin to Meade suing another company for selling a schmidt-newtonian while calling it a schmidt-cassegrain. Even if they prove that an SN is not an SCT, it shouldn't really matter unless they can prove that they lost sales of their real SCTs because people thought they were buying one from someone else. That might actually be plausible because it's not like Meade's SCTs are in any kind of league of their own. Real RCs are in a very different league than even an RCX though. It seems to me that unless the plantiff can actually prove lost sales were a result of meade's misleading advertising they should be entitled to nothing. The only ones who should be awarded here are consumers who might have thought that they were getting a real RC scope at a price they could actually afford.

*edit: Is there any indication that there was a monetary settlement in addition to the changes in meade's language?

[Kaptain K]

Misleading advertising is misleading advertising! While it is doubtful that high-end manufacturers lost sales, there is very little doubt that Meade gained sales by calling it something that it isn't and riding the coattails of others.